special investigation into personal medical investigation it all starts m neil: well, it's friday. do you know where your big government is? welcome, everybody, i'm neil cavuto. if nothing has come out of these bubbling administration scandals, it is this: big government could be in big trouble, and apparently so is faith in that government, especially if it involves irs agents supervising large swaths oft. but leaving aside the public's rightful indignation over nosey agents, this is much bigger than the irs. this is the president's agenda itself, an agenda that now looks in tatters. if you're the white house right about now, do you seriously think yore going to have your way on almost anything now, on raising taxes again on anybody, or pushing through more green energy initiatives for any one or having the upper hand on budget matters anytime soon?

now, i'm not saying the president is a lame duck, but all of these scandals have left him a badly wounded one, and the more theseearings into the irs, spying, the justice department snooping and whole agencies benghazi-revising, you've got to ask yourself something: is this the week the white house proved weak? it's trying to defense the indefensible and proved even weaker. no heart what comes of these various embarrassments, this much is clear: the president's best excuse was that he was, well, out of the loop. he has gone from hands-on to hands-off, but its still going to hit his approval numbers hands down. because it is hard to pound the pulpit when you're taking a pounding in the polls. so is big gov being given the big shove? and will the political fallout have money for democrats falling short? let's ask melissa francis and bob cusack. melissa, what do you think? >> i think that every time we see a scandal like this, i want to say these are the folks you put in charge of your health care, and how do you feel about

that? i mean, that is really terrifying, and i used to say have you been to the dmv lately, have you seen what's going on at the post office, why uld you put these people in charge of your health care? now we have an exact example. this sarah hall ingram who is in charge of the office that decided on the tax-exempt status, she is now in charge of the irs' affordable care office. if that doesn't make you run screaming from big government, i don't know what will. neil: full disclosure, i'm in charge of the governme's fitness program now, anything i can do to help. [laughter] noel, what do you make of this? up until now the president's had the upper hand on a lot of things, and now manyepublicans are seizing on this as a vulnerability going into the 2014 midterm election, furthermore, particularly when it comes to men benghazi for hiy clinton. play this out money wise. >> many good god, this has been a horrible period for the democratic party, and first of

all, obama is the brand for the democratic party. and everything from the ap to the irs to benghazi to going back to fast and furious, everything is hitting the fan, and it can't help but damage the brand, number one, which in turn helps the republican party build their brand. it's kind of like this. so, yes, neil, that's going to help us. it's going to help the gop raise money. because no one's going to want to give to this current administration any of the 2014 raises. it's going to affect thingsike going into 2014 with the, where i am, the pryor race. it's going to effect some of these gubernatorial races all around the united states. the hillary big rah-rah train, that's going to come to a screeching halt because, look, she's in the thick of it as well. so it's going to dry out a little bit of potential money so far. and, neil, i think we're going to find out whether the democratic party, hillary

clinton, everybody and the whole shebang has got a teflon brand. let's see if things can be thrown their way and not stick on 'em, but i think it's going to stick. neil: well, that's what you love, of course, because you raise money for these republicans. [laughter] history proves a lot of it can be short lived, bob. what do you think happens with these various scandals and these various hearings? you've heard the watergate analogies and everything else. >> right. neil: how do you think this stacks up? >> republicans have to watch for overreach here. we saw it with monica lewinsky, you had a lot ofrobes, and house republicans ended up losing two seats in 1998. they've been telling us, listen, we learned our lesson. i agree with melissa on the obamacare angle, they're nervous. we're going to see the bulk implemented on january 1, and you have this trust in government not just one agency like the gsa scandal. now you've got the justice department, the state department, a member of congress says they didn't follow the

proper procedure. and, of course, you have this ongoing irs scandal. so this is, this is something that the democrats are very nervous about. i also think it could hurt immigration because, remember, the department of homeland security's going to get a lot more power if immigration reform is signed into law neil: that's a very good point. i'd almost forgott about that one. that's a good point about whether it's on the administration's agenda, at least shorterm it does. if you're pushing for expansion of health care, you'll still get iti guess, but it's not going to happen rapidly and maybe not fall out the way you wanted with the irs. >> you would think so. and i think the biggest scandal this weemight have been the ap scandal because you saw the press really transformed, you know, from these lap dogs to all of a sudden their toes were the ones that had been stepped on, and they were rraching up to bite. neil: how long do youhink that lasts? think about that. >> i don't know. ne: i always think once a lemming, always a lemming. >> i don't know. i mean, they were very, very hostile. and as you see, you know, the white house continue to stonewall and continue to say,

you know, they say we would like to know more about this investigation and, and thwhite house just continues to stonewall on this, i don't know. i don't know if they relax at quite the same rate. we would hope not, and that could, you know, change things going forward. neil: you know, noel, 40 years ago when we had the first watergate hearing kick off -- this very day -- one of the things that stood out in my mind looking back on it -- >> neil, you were not even born. neil: i wish that were the case. everyone dismissed the case that they would go nowhere, an embarrassment, a slowdown, but what happens in hearings is you have to hear a lot of folks, and they sometimes give conflicting testimony, and sometimes a bombshell is dropped like, oh, the president has a taping system. but that was then. i know different things could happen now. since there are so many scandals going on concurrently now, do you think the more this drags on, the more surprises we'll see? >> i think so. i think that we're going to

see -- i don't think that we have heard the fat lady sing, so to speak. i think there is so much more going on. when you have people joking should i watch the miniseries scandal, or should i just turn on the news and see, you know, what's coming down the pipes next with the white house, you know, from the money point of view this is going to do nothing but help build the coffers of any republican running, because all they have to do is use the current press on what's out there. so i know that your other guest had said something, you know, republicans don't need to be far aching. yeah, i think that we need to get on thisrain now because now is when you take advantage. people are so disgusted, especially with the irs. and whenever you hear irs, everybody, you know, everybody pretty much pays taxes. some don't, but everybody, you know, that's not real -- >> [inaudible conversations] yes, melissa. >> we do kit,e hate it, and when we hear about abuses, boy, it gets everyone incredibly angry. neil: but, bob, here's what i think where thereould be a leak taken here.

if you're the prident, you've got an agenda not only to expand health care, to get these exchanges going by year's end, etc., i could imagine this slows a lot of that down. but does it damage you in budget negotiations? does it make it next to impossible to get further revenue increases, or is that just a disconnect? we assum that's the case. but there' always going to have to be give and take in these negotiations, and that doesn't change. >> right. i think it does hurt the president because his poll numbers are going to take a hit from all these scandals. they are going to linger. they have to play defense for the next several weeks and months. i think there's more, we're hearing a little bit more aboot irs. there's a lot more information going to come or out on the irs, ansenator max baucus is indicating there's more to that story. i do think it hurts his standing. i don't think it gives republicans the upper hand, but clearly, the president is hurt by this. and as we go into the fall, these probes are still going to be ongoing, i think, thiess a

couple of them -- at least a couple of them. it could hurt him in a fiscal fight. neil: you know, melissa, there are a lot of people that look at the markets, and part of what's going on, they're rejoicing at that prospect. i always see this as ben bernanke, you'll be the last surviving adult. >> that's right. the market, at the end of the day, it's all about ben bernke and, boy, when he heads for the exit, put your helmet on. it's going to be something. neil: assuming he has health care. [laughter] all right, guys, wayn't to thank you -- i want to thank you all. meanwhile, where are the whistleblowers? what if i told you they're a lot closer than you think? e read from one of this country' most celebrated whistleblowers, so celebrated russell crowe played him in a big movie. remember "the insider"? >> wipe that smirk off your face! >> associated with satisfaction, it has an effect that crosses

the blood

neil: the hearings starting, the irs chief's now talking, but behind the scenes the wheeling and dealing just beginning to get more of these indians talking. legal experts have already told us on this very program that is how you get folks to testify in turn. you grant them some clemency and deals and just go. to jeffrey wagon who knows this process well, and he did it without a net. because when this famous whistleblower revealed to the world that tobacco giants we spiking their cigattes, he invited the wrath of an entire industry. >> go on television and tell the truth? >> yes. >> is it newsworthysome. >> a portion of your

severance -- [inaudible] >> chapter and verse. neil: forever emblazoned in "the insider" in which russell crowe played his character. jeff, what do you think of these characters and what you've seen out of washington? i'm still waiting for the guys like you who might emerge to reveal something more. maybe they're there, maybe they're not. what do you think? >> well, i mean, this whole process started with the irs in 2010. and we haven't seen much of anybody coming forward with what may have ben immoral or criminal tivities come rward. and it's kind of surprising that nobody has stepped forward. i guess what's going to have to happen is the justice department is going to have to, you know, give them immunity for testimony, and find out who is the cast of characters that are actually responsible not only for the implementation, but the approval of the process. are these only a few rogue agents, or is it a whole system

that was turned upside down during the 2010, 2011 and now into the 2012-'13? neil: jeff, in your case you knew something was amiss here, and the company was lying and doing something deceitful. and i'm always trying to ge the benefit of the doubt in some of these other scandals that maybe these whether they're rogue irs agents or groups following their orders, they thought what they were doing was on the up and up, and no one connected the ethical dots to say this is wrong. what do you think of that? >> well, there's definitely an ethical disconnect here. i mean, i don't know what the culture in the irs is. i can tell you what the culture was in the company i worked for, brown and williamson, it was do most anything to prevent the outside world from understandi what the truth was. and that was part of the culture. neil: but did others know that truth, jeff? you, obviously, were aware of% it, but did they know that things were being manipulated? the company was lying,

misrepresenting itself and worse? >> oh, most certainly they knew it. and, i mean, it was controlled by lawyers. and the lawyers instructed the scientists how to write, they edited their papers, edited their conversations, their communications in meetings only to prevent anything from ever being discovered. and also at the same time ientists like myself were trained what to say outside the company versus what you could say inside the company. so there was a culture of keeping it inside a never letting the facts outside until it was reluctantly produced. neil: guys like you, jeff, in other words, when i see these kind of things pop up, the enron scandal ces to mind, sharon watkins said, well, there really weren't other whistleblowers. why is that the case? could we be waiting for that to be the case with the irs? >> i most certainly expected others to follow me. you have to realize, thenly seor officer in the company

having many silos, there were many people who knew morehan i did for 20 years, and they continued to perpetuatehe fraud. in fact, there's a whole climate, an attitude of what i call bystanderrism. you watch the wrongdoing, not disrupt what's going on. it wasn't very -- it's not very comfortable when you goutside the box with the truth. and you have to be prepared for some hard times. i don't think everybody's willing to do that. neil: yeah. >> i think there are an exceptional few people that have that intestinal fortitude that they see they are becoming just as bad as those that were doing the harm. i mean, when i watched the seven ceos, particully my boss in april of 1994, deliberately and consciously lie in front of congress, it just forces you to say am i the same person as he is? am i just as guilty as he is? and i think -- neil: well, you just read my mind. because then i'm thinking if you're an irs worker bee, an

indian, and you're hearing your chief, district chief, bureau chief, whatever, say, no, we weren't targeting these groups, or this was not part of an orchestrated plot, would you, let's say hypothetically, say, no, that's bs? you did know, and we did know what was going on, are they out there? at do you think? >> i believe there are good in every person. and i imagine there are some people that want to come forward with it. i think they could be incentivized by the department of justice investigation. they're going to look to these people to sort of roll, and as they roll, they will give up the bigger fish up the line. neil: and thas the idea to exerate them or shield them from any legal, you know, attacks themselves, right >> by becoming a witness and getting immunity, they basically are shielded from any kind of critical -- neil: gotcha. >> -- remedy that the justice department has. somebody had to be approving this process. somebody had to know what they

were doing was not conforming to the law. and most certainly, it had to be -- somebody had to have the signals going off in their head this is immoral, this is wrong. now, part of it could be that people are in different silos, and they don't know what's going on, and they're just given a specific task. somebody puts it all together and pulls it all together. neil: yeah. >> i don know what the case is. i think we're seeing the tip of the iceberg. this has been going on since 2010. there's got to be some bodies there that are willing to come out now particularly given the level of scrutiny it's going to get. congressional, it's got the department of justice, it's got e media. i mean, it's ripe for somebody to come forward and say this is what i knew, this is what i was involved in, let me tell you what really was going on. neil: and you think that's going on right now behind the scenes; finding theseeople, getting, you know, protection to go ahead and talk? >> i think that could be very possible. i mean -- neil: interesting.

>> most certainly the people on the bottom that were actually doing it, the agents that were actually doing the illegal work must know now what they were doing was wrong. and i would think they have a good motivation or incentive to say, come on, i want to get out of this. i don't want to be locked up in jail, or i don't want to be fired or whatever the remedy is. they may come forward voluntarily. maybe they'll be incentivized to come forward with immunity. i don't know what's going to happen, but most certainly the onion's going to start being peeled back. neil: we'll watch very closely. jeffrey wagon, always good seeingou. thank you. >> are likewise. thank you. neil: the fox guarding the henhouse and sending all of us to the poor house. the s story that'll have you feeling very sick, that i

neil: and the health care hits just kp on coming. get this, those irs screenings of conservative groups? well, the woman in charge of things during that asco is running the health care division of the same fiasco. to monic adam and jean. what do you make of this, a woman who was there when all of this was going on is now overseeing the unit that will implement a lot of the health care changes over which the irs will have direct control. >> well, she shouldn't get too cozy in that seat, because a lot of heads are going to get chopped off over this. that's the most graceful thing i can say about her at this point. there's no way that you can even suggest this was low-level employees and this was people just ridiculing others for their, you know, own -- under their own devices. like, why would they want to create more work for themselves? this runs deep. to get rid of the ticks, you've got to get all the ticks, and you can't just shed one and think this is over. neil: gene marx, you know what's

coming your way in terms of the responsibilities of follong all these new health care rules, regulations, fees, etc. most of which will be controlled and implemented by the irs. what do you feel and how do you feel about this? >> it's a terrifying thought, isn't it, neil? you have the irs right now that really can't even keep track of what its own employees are doing. now they he to audit the 34 million people walking around inunshired -- uninsured right now. if you're required to have health insurance next year and you don't do it, it's the irs's responsibility to find out. what's that all going to mean about hiring new auditors and increasing the budget? for a small business owner, it just seems like more chaos and burereaucracy. neil neil adam? >> well, i suggest we not hyperventilate what's going on in this very ral situation where people should be punished for wrongdoing if they committed wrongdoing or be too terrified about the i are, s -- irs.

people in the united states voluntarily pa their tax and have done so for a couple hundredears. that's a good thing. we have to make the irs better. we'll do that by criticizing it, but there's every reason to believe that ese audits will lead to a better future with more people being insured -- neil: yeah, but not with this person. this is like putting me in charge of the ponderosa buffet. od luck getting at it. [laughter] >> well, neil, i think we need to be responsible e about the ponderosa buffet, and maybe you'd be a good peon to be in charge. neil: not really, buddy. >> versaw this department, then clearly -- neil: she shouldn't be overseeing this one. >> -- clearly should go. neil: that's all you were saying, monica, not the right person for this job. >> i think it's diminishing the gravity of all of this and, honestlyi' more offended by this than adam, for sure. this is people in power taking advante of people who put their faith in those people. this is no wore than priest molesting little boys. honestly, i don't think i'm being too dramatic --

[inaudible conversations] neil: there's a little ereme difference there, but i just ask this of my small business guy, gene marx. at the very least, do you think that we should go slow on giving the irs any added responsibilities, and by definition wouldn't that delay the rollout of the health care law itself? should we risk that to get this right? >> i mean, neil, look, the biggest issue that most small business owners have had with the health care reform act is that it's being rolled out too% fast. why not take a little bit of time and make sure we get the system right? most of the irs -- don't get me wrong, there are plenty of smart people, but they're just trying get their arms around the tax legislation. now they're being asked to do a whole bunch of new requiremes that's going to take some training and education to do. if they don't know the right questions to ask, they don't know their job, it's going to impact us. that's a big thing for a lot of business owners. neil: go ahead, adam. i would just say that's what the regulatory process is for. it's 2-year-old legislation, and

so we should take time enforcing the regulations and writing them well and getting publ comment on them. that's all fine. i would just like to point out, neil, that we are predisposed to not like the tax man. i meaa, we don't like the meter maid either. nobody does. so that's fine. we should criticize the irs -- >> we should do more than criticize the irs. >> nobody lis, nobody likes the peoe who come to us and say, hi, we're here to collect your taxes. neil: no, i mean, it depends if they're going to audit me right away. here's my thing with this whole predicament, monica, is that i think -- we had laws put in place after watergate to prevent this sort of thing, to use the irs as a bully to go after enemies. and, obviously, we shifted from that. they found ways around that. so we've built up laws and systems in place with this health care law, and if anything it's taught us with the irs is that there are ways around the system where it can be abused.

so do you want to risk giving the irs the responsibility to lock and load on a system that itself is flawed? >> i think it's taking it too far. i don't think we need to scrutinize all of this other legislation just because of what's happening at the irs. i think -- neil: how about just keeping them out of health care? >> we need to deal with what's happening in the irs, we need to deal with the corruption in the irs. think it's separate from the issue of the health care legislation. what offends me is the woman who was on top when all of this stuff was going down, why is she not just put on the sidelines? why isn't she in a rubber room? why is she at the head of something that can create more chaos at this point? >> neil: all right. >> neil, i can speak to -- neil: go ahead, real quick. >> there's two pieces of mail i dread every year, my son's report card and my health insurance premium. [laughter] and the whole -- neil: my son's report card comes with my health insurance premium. [laughter] >> in my case, you need it as

well. but just the whole health care insurance industry is relyg on these 30-34 million more people who are going to be in the market. it's not with all the coverages, you know, who's going to pay the benefit of those extra premiums. a lot of business owners are really concerned about that, and we're letting the irs be the guys a who are going to have to audit these people. with their track record, it's very much of an issue. neil: adam, final word. >> so far there's no evidence that there was any political interference in this. we haven't seen that. so i would say the watergate -- neil: oh, i think there was political interference. we don't know the extent -- >> just by virtue of who was targeted shows there's political interference. >> it shows you the alleged ases of the people who allegedly did the scrutiny, right? but that doesn't -- neil: that's political interference. you and i might -- you're right. [inaudible conversations] neil: potato, poe at the toe. relax, we've got it covered. when the white house says it can

handle this investigationn its own, get worried. and fast.

>> the ig has done an audit, it's now my undstanding, it's going to be recommending an investigation. and, you know, attorney general holder also announced a criminal investigation of what happened. between those investigations i

think we're going to be able to figure out exactly what happened. neil: former irs commissioner mark everson heard that one, and he really started getting worried, muse that the president and his attorney general were quite confident they could handle this probe on their own, thank you, no need for special comes or special anything. commissioner, welcome. good to have you. why is that troubling to you? you don't think it's a case of the government or wing of the govement sort of policing itself, or is it deeper than that? >> well, i'm not sure i actually said that, neil. but what i do think that what i have said was it's very serious for the service once you get any criminal inquiry from doj. that puts, oh, a ral dampening effect on the service. this is horrible event for the irs. d i'm confident that the congress will get to the bottom of this. you've got whatever it is, three or four different committees looking at it. it's just starting. and i do think they're going to get to it, through it with

justice. neil: so you don't feel that there ought to be a special committee or a special prosecutor, any of this kind of stuff that others have suggested going beyond just sort of like either justice investigating itself or justice investigating the irs? >> no, not at this point. neil: okay, gotcha. >> now, if -- and i'm not speculating this is the case -- if you were you to find things g into treasury or the white house, of course, that that beca very different effort. prankly, what we've -- frankly, what we have heard so far, you have an operation in cincinnati that was deplore cial in what it was doing. neil: how do you know they're rogue? there might be some since natty agents who -- cincinnati agents who said we're going to look into these cservative groups and not give them tax-exempt status, but what if it's larger than that? >> well, we'll see.

they're going the find that out. i mean, to me, the ig report clearly documents that the, that office was acting onts own, and then when lois intervened -- which took way too long -- neil: right. >> everyone's question was why did it take so long once she engaged to get this cleaned up, that's one whole set of issues. and then that office, if i recall, they discarded her guidance and did something on their own. that's atrocious. that's bad management. it should have been even-handed. neil, when i was at the service, we did a lot of work on political intervention with c3s in '04 and '06, and that was controversial. as soon as the issue was raised, i asked the aim ig, rustle george, to look at it. he said we could have done it better, don't get me wrong, but he clearly found there was no politicking. neil: i remember that. there was no concerted effort to go after just liberal groups. here it's a much larger scale.

>> right. neil: the last thing i'll leave you with is more a psychological or emotional-type question. at what point do agents, even their bosses, come to the realization, hey, we are targeting groups of a political persuasion, and this is not right? >> that's, that's what's so disturbing here. because even if there were four conservative groups for every fifth liberal group, if you will, in the c4s, they should have had a balanced approach here so that it would survive any scrutiny on the outside. d it clearly wasn't the case. and management didn't respond promptly enough, and then you have the whole set of issues that are being addressed today at ways and means. was the conversation candid with the congress which makes this far more difficult to unravel. neil: got you. ma, i apologize for overstating your point of view. >> that's all right. neil: thank you very much for joining us, commissioner.

we appreciate it. meanwhile, a week ahead of memorial day weekend, and the gougers and fee mongers are out. but one airline's making sure you are safe, happy and, get this, ch

neil: all right. a nerdy venture that seems scandalous, a market rally that maybe is scandalous, and an airline that seems to have had pangs of guilt and now offering something that is not scandalous. an endover the week -- end of the week biz blitz. welcome, guys. first off, microsoft and samsung want to kick google glasses. they want in on those same dorky internet-seeing glasses i thought up til now onl google dare dork. charles, there's got to be something to it. i always think these things look stupid, but maybe i'm missing something. >> think about this, how hard do people work for years to make the hearing aid look like invisible, and then people started putting those big cell phones in 'em anyway?

what was unattractive te years ago is hip today. if i'm google, i'm not too worried about microsoft. maybe samsung may provide a greater thing, but right now it's too cool and expensive for me. keith is the leading edge guy on this stuff. [laughter] neil: well, keith is leading edge. there was supposed to be $1500 or more, oh, neil, they've got to get under $1,000. i said, well, they've got to get under $100. but these glasses, wat's the draw? why is that the future? >> well, i don't know, i think they're new, they're innovative, they're giving people information they wouldn't have otherwise -- neil: like what? let's see you're walking on a city street. are you just walking into light posts? >> you're getting information. according to the guys i'm talking to, you're getting information on which of your friends is in the neighborhood, which coffee shop is -- neil: oh, i thought it told you about a light post before you ran into 'em. >> cinos are already banning these things, you can't be on

the gambling loor. think about it, if you pair those thinged with iplantable microchips which are coming down the line, this is not too far away from human and computer merging. neil: i can't see you get too far in a casino. >> you'll get some old-fashioned technology. neil: we're going to wrap those glasses around your face. [laughtee] anyway, maybe you don't have to fly cmando after all. american bucking the industry fee for all by offering free rly boarding for customers with limited carry-on luggage. keith, what do you make of this? a sign an airline can have a guilt complex? >> i fly an awfulot for what i do, and i'm glad to see this, but i think they ought to just get over it. people are going to take whatever they want on this airplane until they actually start charging fees that provide a disincentive to do that. this is going to, this is just more shade of the same. it's an effort to improve their on-time record, nothing more. neil: this is a tough issue for

charles payne. this is abou commercial travel. >> it doesn't apply to first class, so stop sweating it. [laughter] neil: what do you think of this? >> it reminds me a little bit, the whole industry, i don't know if you guys remember the old underdog cartoon. he would turn people upside down and shake every nickel out of their pockets. that's what they've become, riffraff, are you kidding me? neil: i'd love to see you on that airline. [laughter] into yeah. and that'd be -- 5. i think it helps with efficiency. anyone who thinks this has gone away, they're out of their minds. neil: so don't get spoiled. final issue, is the stock surge since all of these crises me to life the market's way of saying keep the crises coming? the more these scandals soar, the more the president's big spending issues are stymied. chles, do you buy that? >> in a word, hell yeah. actually, it's two words. laugh.

neil: you need those glasses. >> i do. the president's anti-business agenda will be mired in muck and slowed down dramatically, absolutely. midterm election. us to the maybe the gop keeps the house, gets the senate. we like balced government. we like gridlock particularly in this case because it will stop an agenda that's not too friendly to capitalism. neil: you know, i generally agree with charles on everything he says, a, because he can beat me up, he's also very smart. but normally i'd agree with that. here's my concern. we've got a lot of issues we've got to address now like getting spending under control. some sort of agreement on a simpler tax code. maybe at's wishful thinking on my part. this just delays if not negates that, and that is a worry. is this a sign gridlock would not be welcome? >> yeah, but you know what? this is the oldest game in the kick the can down the road. neil: yeah, well, we can't anymore. >> i don't know about that. they've been doing it for 40 years. i would argue as long as

bernanke's got access to the printing press, he's going to continue until he'sgreen in the face. but the bottom line here to me is the markets like this because it keeps washington out of wall street's hair. ceos can go ahead and spend money because they're not worried about additional legiation screwing it up further than they've already been screwed up -- nnil: oa, whoa, whoa. are you saying then that by no additional legislation, in other words, no additional attemptsn the part of this administration for green initiatives and all that, you think these crises have stopped that? >> well, they're not going to stop it entirely inside the beltway. but you know what? ceos that i've talked to in the last 72 hours are all saying, great, let 'em have it. neil: i see. >> we've got enough uncertainty with what's on the plate. let's just dig through this now and actually begun to capitalize our -- begin to capitalize our expenditures. neil: understood. >> i'm just not sure washington's going to somehow stop kicking the can down the road. i'm not so sure we ultimately have to have a hard landing to

learn in the hard way. it's unfortune, but i believe that's the way it's going to happen. ne: all right, guys, want to thank you both. have a great, safe weekend. by the way, you've got to chaales this weekend. oy. anyway, it got ugly on capitol hill today. >> you're arguing today that the irs is not corrupt. but the subtext of that is you're saying, look, we're just incompetent. neil: i want youo me the republicanongressman at today'shearing. think it got ugly?

>> how can we not credit card that you misled this committee?

>> that was a lot of questions, sir. >> it's one. how can we conclude you did not mislead this committee? >> i did not mislead the committee. >> regardless of whether democrats or republicans did mething like this, the outrage ould still be there, is that not correct? >> the outrage as to -- >> the abuse. >> yes. >> are our most expansive federal powers are given to our most intrusive agency. and then you add on top of that incompetence or whatever else we have, and it's a disaster. neil: man, oh, man, d to hear republican congressmen tell it, they're just warming up. the man who wants to get to the bottom of this mess jins us right now. congressman, did we get any answers at all today? well, we got a mixed bag of responses from mr. miller regarding what he calls and what he doesn't recall in this very important time period from january 2010 to present. he seemed to have some good memories on some issues and very

lackluster memory on other issues. so i think bottom line is our committee got a lot of information from which to build be on now our further inquiries and further investigation about not only how tax-exempt organizations were handled for 501c4 status or even the dissemination of taxpayer information to outside groups, whether that occurred as well and who has a result should be held accountable if or that. neil: do you suspect this goes way beyond conservative groups? the reason why i ask iss a numbr of very prominent ceos and top conservatives, republicans and moderate republicans at that told me, neil, i was audited. hey, you were audited too? in other words, they're not groups. these are individuals. and i'm wondering, it might just be coincidence, but whether there might have been a larger systemic problem and targeting going on. >> well, that's what we need to find out. the purpose of today's hearing was just to set the table for

the parameters around which we're going to continue our work on the ways and means committee. chairman camp has done a great job just to get everything in place so that the full committee as well as the subcommittee on oversight can continue to look into these individual issues that are out there and have a lot of credibility and for the answers that i heard from mr. miller were certainly not answered by what his commentary was today. neil: yeah. real quickly, sir, the onething that caught my mind with some of the democratic questioners today, they kept mentioning a lot of these wereush appointees as the if they minimized the seriousness of what was going on today. we do know enough that it was these conservative groups that were targeted, so whether they were bush appointees or millard fillmore appointees, does that really matter? >> no, i don't think it matters atll. the question is why employees in the irs both in cincinnati but also in washington, d.c. and other offices clearly violated

their obligations under current federal law and how they handle these applications and how perhaps they handle taxpayer information generally. and it's not, it's not really relevant as to who was appointed to whom. when you're in that position, it's what your legal obligation is and how that information is used and how you handle those applications.% and that's what we're going to continue to move the inquiry. neil: we're going to have a summerf hearings, aren't we? >> well, there's a lot of information that we want to go over and a lot of information that's not been produced for o committee as of yet. and if you listen to the testimony by inspector general george, that office is going to continue to do a lot more investigation into these issues. so there's going to be a lot more hearings that are going to ultimately lead to the truth of what haened. neil: all right. congressman, thank you for taking the time. >> thanks for having me. neil: all right. well, here's a weird one for you. apple's o being dragged to capitol hill next week to explain to the folks who have no cash why he sitting cautiously on a lot

neil: all right. what's that they say about no good deed goes unpunished? apple cautiously guards its loot to prepare for a rainy day, and the folks who have spent all of our loot, all of our futures want to know why he can't be like them and blow it all away. that is, basically, what apple's ceo tim cook is up against when he plays what i'm sure will be a pinata an capitol hill next week. lawmakers are asking him to defend his $100 billion cash stash. why can't you blow it like us? adam, that's weird. that's all i'm saying, that's weird. [laughter] i think i got the gist of it. >> i don't know that they're asking him to defend anything so much as discuss and explain apple's tax plicy. i mean, there's a perfectly legitimate discussion to be had here about why it is, fir of all, that apple doesn't repatriate its cash. tim cook has a very good answer for that. they would have to face high taxes to do it. but there's also this elaborate scheme that apple and other u.s.

companies very legally use to put their, to route their money through caribbean islands and luxembourg and ireland and reno, nevada, and the list -- neil: wait a minute, how do you get from luxembourg to reno, nevada? gene marx, what do you make of that? >> first of all, whatever schemes they're doing as long as it's legal, it's legal. and it's very interesting they'r brinng in tim cook because, you know, he runs apple which happens to be one of the most well kno companies on the planet, so why not get a little press out ofhat as well. neil: good point. >> imagine someone saying to you this is the amount of money you have in your account, and the government says you have to spend it on this or that. that's what i've got a wife for. [laughter] neil: you just alienated a few viewers, but what the heck? monica, what i wonder with this is to what end is apple used, as -- >> guys, i've lost sound. neil: and what do you make of that, make an example to sort of guilt these companies into not

just sitting on that dough? >> i think this is just preposterous, to be honest with you. apple's not doing anything against the law, and they owe to their shareholders. that's who tim cook should be looking out for, and they're doing absolutely everything by the leg of the law, and to even suggest that there's a level of ethics involved here, i think, just turns my stomach over. i don't think jesus has a position on a tax code. i don't think -- [inaudible] krishna has a position on th tax code. neil: you know, jesus loves -- neil: >> i completely disagree with you. >> the government needs a certain amount of money, and if the legislators need more than that, they should be very cle with the tax code. >> so, monica -- >> if you're creating loopholes, then don't get outraged when peop use them. >> at the risk of, at the rsk of suggesting a civs lesson to you, the congress makes laws. they would like -- they have every right to change the tax law. and we can have a -- >> so change it! why are you grilling people --

in let me finish, please, about whether or not -- let me finish, please, about whether or not the tax law is correcand appropriate. so i even said and i agree that apple is llowing the tax law, and they're going to have a conversati about whether or not we should change the tax law. in other words, should it be legal -- neil: all right, fair eough. gene, here's what i like about this, and i'm not a fan of the congress scrutinizing anyone about fiscal propriety. but leaving aside that, i like the fact that the coolest company on earth that was always above getting picked apart is now getting a little bit picked apart. so that is an encouraging development, i just think for all the wrong reasons. what say you? >> you know, i can say one thing, um, i think making the attention on apple certainly puts attention on that issue. but i want to give credit, actually, to tim cook. he's playing it the right way. he's being summoned, and i bet he'll handle it -- neil: you can't not go, right? >> you can't ignoret, but at the same time look at the trouble microsoft got into, look

at the antitrust trouble google's in right now. you have to play this game, and i give him credit for doing that. >> to gene's point, he could send his head of taxation, and he's going and taking responsibility. i completely agree. neil: apple had taxation? you wrote the book on it, so i guess they do. >> i assume there's someone who's in charge of tax policy, yes. neil: oh, all right. >> i don't think he'll be a pinata at all. neil: oh, i guarantee you, i'm going to replay that press conference or hearing -- it will be like a press conference. >> this is not market research. like, ifou're telling me there isn't going to be grandstanding going on, i'll send you lunch. >> well, it's congress. come on. neil: whoa, whoa, whoa -- [inaudible conversations] guys, i want to thank you all. gene marx, good luck sleeping on the couch tonight. [laughter] >> you know i'm going to get in trouble for that, neil. neil: by the way, stand in line. i've done the same thing. have a great weekend, everybody. we're going to be monitoring a of these hearings and can all of these scandals and all of these

cross-current event we're watching them all, each and every single one of them. it's you, it's your money, it's your life, it's your country. we are on it like no one's m m . that is it for tonight's willis report. we will see you monday. ♪ lou: good evening, everybody. thank you for being with us. the obama administration broaning investigations into benghazi, the justice department and the internal revenue service. stephen ehlert appeared fore the house committee today to answer for his agencies targeting of conservive groups and those who have been vocal in their opposition to the federal government. the hearing turned into a public sham.